Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[unicus]

Originally Posted by OF1975

My understanding, and everything that I have read, points to the fact that both Dr Richard Clayton and Nicholas Boehm of the FIPR were INVITED to discuss the Phorm system so they could give people a detailed technical analysis

This is how I understand it happened and makes perfect sense as Phorm have such an arrogance that their system is legal it beggars belief. Regardless whether they try and put the interception mechanism in the control of the ISP or not it is still breaking the law and they are complicit.

Just to comment on Simon Watkin's reply - he clarified that the HO believe a system could be made that is within the law which is something I've said before. Unfortunately they do not seem to know how Phorm's system works and also seem a little reluctant to find out, why? We know it doesn't work within the law and that no system that did would be commercially viable - Phorm need lots of users which a truly informed opt-in system would not get them.

HO need to investigate this issue, they cannot take Phorm's or BT's word for it.

[BeckyD]

Originally Posted by diddy1

I would also like to make a contribution of some sorts, maybe the CF team could set somthing up to enable those who would like to make a Donation, to help with travel costs, or just to say thank you for all the effort that has been put in by a lot of people on this matter.

I too would like to make a contribution to help those who have done so much for this cause.

[OF1975]

I am just now heavily editing and rewriting one of the letters someone else put up here (Sorry cant remember who wrote it originally, so many have been posted here) so that I can write a follow up letter to my MP. He failed to respond to my first letter and its now been almost 4 weeks since I first wrote. He is a labour MP so I aren't overly hopeful but I intend to write the closing paragraph in a way he will find more difficult to ignore.

[Portly_Giraffe]

Like Florence, I have now heard from Simon Watkin, a well-measured, professional reply, all be it one with which I have deep concerns. However, as it does not tell us much more than his reply to Florence, as I have some supplementary questions and as he hasn't given express permission for me to publish it here, I'll summarise the correspondence after I've heard from him again providing of course he gives his permission.

The same cannot be said for the reply I received from the Home Office. Here therefore is the entire correspondence so far. Please draw your own conclusions.

From: [Portly_Giraffe]
Sent: 14 April 2008 7:38 PM
To: COMMSDATA
Subject: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act: BT's Phorm trial

Between 23 September and 6 October 2006 and again in June
2007, BT trialled Phorm, a technology for intercepting,
reading and analysing private Internet communications. At
no time was consent sought from or granted by either the
tens of thousands of users whose traffic was intercepted
or by the owners of the websites which they accessed.

Please tell me whether you intend to instigate criminal
proceedings against BT and named individuals such as Emma
Sanderson for breaching the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000.

on 15/4/08 14:22, Knight Andrew at Andrew.Knight@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk wrote:

Thank you for you email related to Targeted Online Adverts
and possible breaches of the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). RIPA is primarily about how state
bodies; such as the police, local councils the security
and intelligence agencies, conduct some of their
investigatory functions.

RIPA exists to provide a statutory basis and operating
framework for the Police and other law enforcement bodies
to interfere with an individual’s right to privacy, for
instance during the course of an criminal investigation.
An independent body exists to deal with complaints about
breaches of RIPA in relation to the police or other State
investigatory bodies.

The Home Office published a view http://cryptome.org/ho-
phorm.htm based upon its understanding of targeted online
advertising, specifically related to Phorm. It is
important to add this is not a legal opinion, which only a
court can give. As mentioned in the view, there is the
possibility that a communications company can lawfully
intercept communications. That is not to say whether or
not that has happened in this case, it is for the
communications company to ensure that they are compliant
with the law.


Andrew Knight

Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 16:59
From: [Portly_Giraffe]
To: Knight Andrew <Andrew.Knight@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
Conversation: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act: BT's Phorm trial


Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your response. However you do not appear to have read my questions, let
alone answered them. In case they are too hard for you, I will rephrase them.

(1) My understanding is that the RIPA applies to anyone, not just state agencies.
Please tell me whether I am right or wrong.

(2) By their own admission, BT have intercepted the private communications of tens
of thousands of users. Please tell me whether or not you think a criminal offence
has been committed under the RIPA.

(3) if you think a criminal offence has been committed under the RIPA, please tell
me why no action has yet been taken.

Thanks,
[Portly].

By the way, this is as livid as I get.

[PhormUKPRteam]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Greetings PhormUKPRteam how was the meeting with simon this morning good i hope, hope you guys were discussing how many overjoyed pr employee's will be spouting questions at tonights meeting (can anyone get a list of the 54 people turning up to tonights event) would be interesting to see how many are working or can be identified as working for phorm pr.

Any new information you can give us here about any new developments with this amazing peice of kit being developed? or you just here to sit around and spy on questions that might come and and go away and prepare answers if they ever arrived.

Can i also ask who is the real independent person apart from alexander who will be speaking?
Dr Richard Claytons report was edited and approved by phorm with a couple of leaks of info not everything people need to know.
80/20 have been commisioned to produce a workable report with a glowing reference by phorm and are in strategic patnership with Burson-Marsteller pr firm employed by phorm.
Where is the expert independent non-paid for by phorm in this meeting seems to be none present.

Greetings Bonglet
You seem to have the wrong end of a few sticks here. For the record, I think at present about three members of the Phorm UK PR effort will be present tonight. Personally speaking I won't be and neither will other team members I know.
Secondly, if you take a look at the intro to Dr Clayton's report at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf he himself covers the process by which Phorm checked his report. We did not edit it or indeed censor what he saw - check the ORG site and even they refer to thier access as "the real deal".
We did not pay for or commission the report either. We invited Richard Clayton and the ORG to look at our system. Not out of arrogance but a simple desire to be as transparent as possible. And as for your suspicion that he is not an expert take a look at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/ - the man's CV is outstanding.
As always, if you want any more information, check out http://www.webwise.com or http://www.phorm.com

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

My bad then ignore everything i said about him im sure i read that he was commisoned for the project somewhere sincere apologies to Mr Clayton ill edit accordingly.
Phorm still had a spin on this with a bit editing and is still not a 100% overview as was edited and didnt examine any source code.

As you've climbed down on impugning Richard's independence, could I trouble you to examine your next (and probably libelous) claim against Simon and 80/20:

Originally Posted by Bonglet

80/20 have been commisioned to produce a workable report with a glowing reference by phorm

Simon has a fearsome track record in defending public privacy rights; has explained and specified how the 80/20 PIA is independent of Phorm; and his interim report was hardly a "glowing reference".

Your on-going campaign of unsubstantiated innuendo and hysterical attacks on Simon's character does not further the discussion and denigrates the efforts of Alex and the rest of the forum's investigations of Phorm.

I'd invite you in future to provide sources for any claims against individuals who are demonstrably independent and, as far as I'm currently aware, beyond reproach.


In that post you also ask:

Where is the expert independent non-paid for by phorm in this meeting seems to be none present.

If you'd like to put up some cash then I'm sure your independent expert would be welcome to attend. But then he'd be *your* expert and therefore not independent, wouldn't he?

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------

@Phorm PR
Still not managed to find the time to moderate my posts to the Phorm blog or respond to my question, I see?

So much for making it your priority...

[OF1975]

Welcome back PhormPRTeam and if I may be so bold may I thank you for cutting out the spin. Your last post was both accurate and clear for once. Hopefully this bodes well for the future.

[wecpc]

I have just seen this post on the BT Forum, which looks interesting.

Re: BT Webwise Discussion Thread
Posted: Apr 15, 2008 4:44 PM in response to: Mark W Reply

Mark W wrote:
The hosting for the http://www.bt.com/webwise/ site is currently suffering from some issues, I'm told it should be back up later today.

Mark W - If your post is an answer to Sean, then are you saying his general browsing problems are due to a Webwise server problem? That his general browsing traffic is somehow being routed through the webwise server? Can we quote you on that? Something along the lines of:

"In answer to a BT customer's (Sean Thorpe's) question about problems he has been having recently connecting to many websites, while blocking cookies from webwise, BT staff member Mark W replied in the BT official Beta forums, that the BT Webwise site was currently suffering from some issues and should be back up later in the day."

Until this post, users had understood that their normal browsing traffic did not pass through Webwise servers (which are hosted at an IP address whose lookup gives an address in Houston, Texas).

Could you clarify before we copy your post across the various Webwise related sites on the internet and send it to the Register? Let's say within the next 24 hours? Or perhaps we should just forward it for answer at the 80/20 meeting tonight?

And while we're at it - there are one or two other unanswered questions on the various Phorm/Webwise discussion threads as well as the locked Q&A threads. Will anyone be answering those?

Don't forget the public 80/20 meeting about Phorm tonight in London.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ad-page-3.html

Mark W has just added this.

Apologies about that I misunderstood Sean's question, I thought he was having issues connecting to the Webwise FAQ site. That site was having some issues with it's hosting earlier today, it's not connected with any of the systems that the Webwise trial will be using and the trial has not yet started.

As I've already stated the next time BT will be updating the FAQ pages will be when we release information about the trial, when that happens I'll post an update here.

Also I've had to delete a number of posts from this thread referring to various moderator actions as this against our rules and guidelines.

Respect the moderators
Please do not 'call out' or argue with moderator decisions on the community. If you have any comments or questions about the actions of the moderation team you can contact them via email at forum dot moderation dot team at bt dot com.

If you want to discuss any posts of yours that have been moderated please use that above address.

Thanks
Mark Wilkin
Support Community Coordinator

[Bonglet]

I dont want to touch phorm websites or webwise with a barge pole hence the information from there missing, did you give full source code of the software going to be deployed to mr clayton when he visited?

Apologies for any mistaken persons involved with my misinformation maybe im just to paranoid after having next to no sleep last night ill sit back and watch from now on.

p.s phormpr can you answer questions instead of deflecting to people's misjudged judgment of charcter today?

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

(2) By their own admission, BT have intercepted the private communications of tens
of thousands of users. Please tell me whether or not you think a criminal offence
has been committed under the RIPA.

Could I ask you to consider posing the question the other way round?
Something like:
"Please tell me how you believe BT's interception did not amount to a criminal offence under RIPA."

[bigbadcol]

Hi Portly_Giraffe

It is a shame that the home office are unable to read. they have stated before that RIPA is primarily about how state
bodies; such as the police, local councils the security and intelligence agencies, conduct some of their
investigatory functions.

However chapter 1 section 1. of the act says that the act also applies to "a person" intercepting postal and telecomunication systems.

------------------------------------
Part I Communications
Chapter I Interception
Unlawful and authorised interception
1 Unlawful interception

(1) It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of—

(a) a public postal service; or

(b) a public telecommunication system.

(2) It shall be an offence for a person—

(a) intentionally and without lawful authority, and

(b) otherwise than in circumstances in which his conduct is excluded by subsection (6) from criminal liability under this subsection,

to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system.
-------------------------------------------------

So it is clear that the act applies to a public telephone system, so when Bt intercepted the traffic, BT broke the Law.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000..._20000023_en_2

What the heck are the home office up to by misleading you on this.

Many thanks for contacting them and posting the reply.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Bonglet

Apologies for any mistaken persons involved with my misinformation maybe im just to paranoid after having next to no sleep last night ill sit back and watch from now on.

It's not Phorm who are due the apology but Richard Clayton and Simon Davies.
I'm not sure but I don't think that using lack of sleep to explain your poor judgement calls would work as a defence against allegations of libel.

p.s phormpr can you answer questions instead of deflecting to people's misjudged judgment of charcter today?

That's simple, mate: just STOP MAKING THEM!
Then they (and I) won't feel the need to correct them...


Obviously if you can back up each of your claims, then go right ahead.
I'll be one of the first to check your sources!

[fidbod]

Hi Portly-Giraffe

I think the key to dealing with the Civil servants is not to ask them to make any kind of judgement or offer an opinion.

My response to him would be something along the lines of:

Dear XXXXX,

I believe I have been the victim of an illegal interception as defined by RIPA.

The Information Commissioner in his statement [insert reference to the revised ICO statement] indicated that investigation of possible breaches of RIPA is the responsibility of the Home Office.

Please could you tell me which agency, branch or department of the Home Office I should make my complaint to in the first instance.

Regards ....

[bigbadcol]

To PhormUKPRteam

Simple question. PLEASE ANSWER.

As I posted above section chaper1 section 1 of RIPA states

Chapter 1 states the following:-

------------------------------------
Part I Communications
Chapter I Interception
Unlawful and authorised interception
1 Unlawful interception

(1) It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of�

(a) a public postal service; or

(b) a public telecommunication system.

(2) It shall be an offence for a person�

(a) intentionally and without lawful authority, and

(b) otherwise than in circumstances in which his conduct is excluded by subsection (6) from criminal liability under this subsection,

to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system.
-------------------------------------------------

As PHORM intercepted a (b) a public telecommunication system. And Interception is illegal under the act, In what way to you think Phorm is legal.

Please note this question is not about personal data. So please dont post the usual ..."we donet keep bla bla bla"....

You Intercepted , as stated by BT. So why do you think the intercept is legal.

Which QC provided you with legal advice.?

Thank you

[Bonglet]

Ok here ceedee

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7303426.stm thats where i got the information from

"The report commissioned by Phorm and carried out by two respected privacy campaigners said sensitive user data should not be collected by the tool."

I actually thought a commissioned report was were some party got paid correct me if im wrong.

so i took bbc's report out of context apologies again to Richard Clayton and Simon Davies.

Satisified ?